SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-47027 February 4, 1941

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BENITO R. PADILLA and ALFRED VON AREND, Defendants-Appellants.

Ross, Lawrence, Selph and Carrascoso for appellant Alfred Von Arend.
E.A. Picazo for appellant Benito R. Padilla.
Office of the Solicitor General Ozaeta for appellee.

LAUREL, J.:

On October 27, 1938, in criminal case No. 57235 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Benito R. Padilla and Alfred Von Arend were charged with a violation of Commonwealth Act No. 108, in relation to Commonwealth Act No. 138. The information filed against them by the fiscal of Manila is of the following tenor:

That on and during the period between December, 1936 to August, 1938, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, Benito R. Padilla, a Filipino citizen, and Alfred Von Arend, a German citizen, voluntarily, illegally and criminally, with intent to evade the provisions of Article 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 138, which require Philippine or United States citizenship before the exercise or enjoyment of the privilege established in said article, acting jointly and conniving with each other, executed the following acts, to wit: ( a) the former permitting the latter and for the latter's corporation, known as the "Insular Drug Co.," an entity which is not domestic under the provisions of said Act, because 75% of its capital stock belongs to neither Filipino or American, and of which Alfred Von Arend is the president and general manager, to make use, as in effect made use of his name and of his mercantile domestic firm, known as the "Padilla Central Distributors", in the official auctions for the supply to the Government and its branches of articles, materials and equipment for public use; and ( b) the latter making use, in said official auctions, of the name of the former and that of his commercial firm to the benefit of said corporation, both the accused having gained from the transactions which resulted from such illegal practice, in violation of Article 1 of Commonwealth Act. No. 138.

Upon his request, Alfred Von Arend was granted a separate trial, although by agreement of the parties all the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense in the trial of Alfred Von Arend were offered and admitted in Padilla's. The trial court, on July 25, 1939, rendered judgment finding the two accused guilty of the offense charged, and sentenced each of them to an indeterminate penalty of from two years to four years, to pay a fine of P2,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs. Both have appealed to this Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Counsel for Von Arend makes the following assignment of errors:

I. The trial court erred in ruling that Commonwealth Act. No. 108 had any connection with Commonwealth Act No. 138 or that it punished any deviation from the preferences provided by the law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

II. The trial court erred in not finding that Commonwealth Act No. 108 as interpreted by the trial court was enacted in violation of Article VI, sec. 12(1) of the Constitution of the Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

III. The trial court erred in holding that Commonwealth Act No. 108 as applied to Alfred Von Arend in this case did not deprive him of his liberty and property without due process of law contrary to Article III, section 1, subsections 15 and 17 of the constitution of the Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

IV. The trial court erred and acted contrary to Article III, sec. 1, subsections 15 and 17 of the Constitution of the Philippines in convicting Alfred Von Arend on the basis of evidence not offered at the trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

V. The trial court erred in not properly complying with the provisions of section 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

VI. The trial court erred in not holding that Commonwealth Act No. 138 was unconstitutional and void as being contrary to an act of the Congress of the United